Dominic Bnonn Tennant

This post has been subject to correction in ‘Thinking more clearly about the atonement’ »

Darryl Burling, a Christian friend of mine whose blog is well worth adding to your feed aggregator, recently posted an article titled ‘Four and a half point Calvinism and the Gospel’. In it, he proffers an argument against particular redemption—what is often called limited atonement, which is the doctrine comprising the third point of Calvinism formulated by the Synod of Dort. His reasoning focuses on 2 Corinthians 5:18-20, John 3:16, and 1 John 2:2, which speak of “the world” in reference to God’s sacrificial love. The argument he makes is that these passages are most naturally interpreted as referring to all people without exception, rather than to all kinds of people without exception.

Now, I am sympathetic to Darryl’s argument, and it is indeed an issue over which I myself have been ambivalent in the past. I am also tempted to say that, although it is an interesting point of theology, it doesn’t really matter whether the atonement is limited or not, since it is only efficacious to those who believe. However, Darryl suggests that the extent of the atonement is not merely of theoretical concern, but one of eminent practical relevance, because it affects the gospel message which we preach:

there is only one condition for salvation – believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved (Acts 16:31). This message of reconciliation is thus “the punishment for your sin has already been taken care of in Jesus’s death – believe in His sufficiency to appease the wrath of God on your behalf and you will be saved”.

To believe in the sufficiency of Christ means we need to believe that He is the incarnate God and as such is without sin, thus his sacrifice for sin is acceptable.

If the death of Christ was only for the elect, then the message we preach must be “believe on the Lord and that affirms that your sin was punished in His death”. This is quite a different message and raises questions in the mind of the hearer – “Was my sin really covered in Christ’s death? How do I know? If I believe, is that just me or is it because of His work?”

These are indeed two different messages. However, we must carefully examine whether the command to “believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved” logically implies the gospel message that “the punishment for your sin has already been taken care of in Jesus’s death – believe in His sufficiency to appease the wrath of God on your behalf and you will be saved.” Conversely, if Christ did die only for his elect, does this logically entail the message, “believe on the Lord and that affirms that your sin was punished in His death”?

The unlimited atonement message

It seems to me that the two parts of the unlimited atonement message Darryl proffers are logically unconnected. There are two clauses: firstly, the punishment for your sin has already been taken care of in Jesus’s death, and secondly, believe in His sufficiency to appease the wrath of God on your behalf and you will be saved. Now, the latter clause seems biblical to me; the instruction or command to believe unto salvation is clear in Scripture and constitutes part of the core of the gospel. Another part, though, has been omitted here; and that is the command to repent. It may seem pedantic to point this out—one might even argue that it is implicit in the command. But in a world where the gospel has indeed been watered down as Darryl says, we need to be clear in what we are preaching. It is no good to believe in Christ if you do not repent. Genuine belief entails repentance, so we must be sure that people understand what we mean by “believe”.

This criticism aside, though, does this command to the sinner to believe unto salvation logically imply that punishment for his sins has been “taken care of” in Jesus? I cannot see that it does, but I think we need to clarify what it means for the sins to be “taken care of”. It cannot mean that they are, in fact, already covered, because we know that the actual application of the atonement, which is what covers sins, is through faith. If our sins were covered before faith, then even the sin of unbelief would be covered, and there would be no need for faith after all. Everyone would be saved. But if unbelief is not covered in the atonement, then it cannot be blotted out before God—so even Christians must still be guilty of it, even if only from the time before we are saved (although, really, we are all guilty of it often).

This is the problem, or one of the problems, with trying define a “potential” atonement: as a concept, it self-destructs—

1. Christ’s atonement was sufficient to save from all sin.
2. Unbelief is a sin.
3. Therefore, Christ’s atonement was sufficient to save from unbelief.
4. But unbelievers are not saved.
5. Therefore, Christ’s atonement does not save from unbelief.
6. Therefore, his atonement is not sufficient to save from all sin.

Sin is both qualitative, in that there are degrees of it; and quantitative, in that there are specific sins. When the world finally comes to an end, there will be a definite number of sins which have been committed by each person throughout time, and no more. These sins will also have a collective qualitative degree, a “badness” if you will, that only God knows. Talking about “potential atonement”, however, treats Christ’s sacrifice as purely qualitative—even if only by implication. It supposes that there is a degree of sin beyond which mankind collectively will never pass, and that Christ has paid this full degree. It is therefore sufficient to cover us all individually, should we choose it. In other words, the qualitative aspect is covered, but the quantitative aspect is not. Otherwise, all sins would actually be covered and everyone would be saved. Under this scheme, we need to apply the atonement to our specific sins in order for them to be actually covered, and we do this through faith.

This might make sense if the qualitative side of sin were not directly related to the quantitative. But the qualitative degree of sin is specific to actual sins, and so whatever degree of sin ultimately requires atoning for is a direct consequence of a quantity of actual sins. In other words, it is impossible to atone for a quality of actual sin without also atoning for the specific sins from which this quality, this degree, arises. There are no theoretical sins which require atoning for, only actual ones; and so there is no theoretical atonement, but only an actual one. If we are talking about an actual atonement which has taken place “once for all” (Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:1-18; 1 Pet 3:18), then we must be talking about atonement for actual sins as well. An actual atonement must atone for something; otherwise it would not be actual. It would not be an atonement at all.

But if Christ has actually atoned for sin once for all, then all the sins for which he atoned are covered—both qualitatively and quantitatively. In fact, they are covered qualitatively because they are covered quantitatively. Now, this atonement is still applied in time, through faith—so we might say that the sins of a Christian not yet born have not yet been covered, in a temporal sense, because the atonement has not yet been applied to him through faith. But it remains a certainty that it will be applied in this manner, because it was an actual atonement, made for those actual sins. This being the case, it is impossible to speak of a potential atonement, except in the sense of saying that it has not yet been applied, in time, to some of the sins for which it was actually made. It cannot be the case that it will never be applied to some of the sins for which it was made, since in that case it would never have been made for them.

Therefore, when the Bible speaks of Christ’s sacrifice being “once for all”, it cannot be referring to “all” people without exception. Otherwise, every person without exception would be saved; which is universalism; a dangerous heresy which logically entails the negation of the gospel. Rather, it must mean “all” Christians; or “all” kinds of people—just as, when it says we will be hated by “all”, it does not mean that every person without exception will hate us (Matt 10:22); or that “all” the Jews in Acts 26:4 included every Jew without exception (see Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology (PDF), pp 136-146).

So potential atonement, or hypothetical universalism, is not a logically consistent doctrine. When its implications are teased out, it can be seen that, by logical necessity, either all people are saved, or none are. Hypothetical universalism is actually impossible—just as passive reprobation is impossible, and libertarian free will is impossible. These doctrines try to find a “happy” medium between one seemingly “extreme” position and another—but since these extremes are logically contradictory, no medium can exist.

The limited atonement message

For this reason, we cannot hold to unlimited atonement, or general redemption, and preach a gospel message that Christ has died for everyone’s sins. We must instead preach the message that the apostles did: that Christ is the savior who died for his people, and that if you repent and believe, then you will be saved. There really is nothing to say about potential versus actual atonement when preaching the gospel. That is never the focus we see in Scripture. Rather, we are to convict people of their sin and command them to repent, instructing them in the way of salvation which God has provided. It may seem, because of our clouded thinking and temporal viewpoint, that this equates to a message of potential atonement; but it really cannot, because the atonement has already been made, once, for all God’s people. If someone does repent and believe, then we know that his sins are atoned for and he is of God’s people; if he does not repent, then we know the opposite is true.

Does this logically entail that we must preach the gospel message that Darryl suggests: “believe on the Lord and that affirms that your sin was punished in His death”? While it is true that someone’s repentance and belief do indeed affirm that his sin was punished in Christ, it is not the only possible gospel message we can preach. It is certainly a gospel message; but not a very effective one, and not a very biblical one. Other messages are certainly possible.

One possible message in particular is that which the apostles themselves preached—not to the converted, in which they teach in greater detail the things of God, but to the unconverted, in which they are teaching the very thing required for salvation. Two passages in particular commend themselves to my attention:

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (Acts 2:38-39).

But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. 17And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 18But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. 19Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out (Acts 3:14-15,17-19).

The former passage in particular is instructive to our question; the latter assisting the former. Notice that the promise, the gospel, is for “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” It is not for everyone without exception, but for everyone called by God. The gospel is not couched as a universal invitation, but as a command: repent, and believe, that your sins may be blotted out. To whom this promise of salvation is given is not generally mentioned at all—but, when it is, it is clearly affirmed that it is for the elect, and not for everyone without discrimination. However, because we do not know who will be called, we are to preach to everyone without discrimination. The fact that all people everywhere are commanded to repent does not imply that all people everywhere will repent, or that they can repent, or that the atonement we preach was actually made for them at all. On the contrary, we know that the atonement was made only for God’s people—we just don’t know who those people are, and so we search them out by preaching to everyone without discrimination.

If you still doubt that Christ died only for his elect, allow the following two considerations to persuade you: firstly, the scriptural evidence which explicitly states this; secondly, a holistic view of redemption itself. For the first case, I submit the following passages which reveal that Christ died only for his own people, the elect:

14I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 25Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, 26but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. 27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand (John 10:14-15,25-29).

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant (Heb 9:15).

And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth” (Rev 5:9-10).

These all speak of a specific atonement; a specific redemption, made by Christ for his own people, rather than for the whole world without exception. However, it is only when we consider the plan of redemption as a whole that this becomes strikingly clear. What I mean is, the atonement is an historical event which was but one part of God’s larger redemptive plan, which he formulated from eternity and implemented in time. I refer here to the process of salvation which is elucidated in Ephesians 1 and 2, which I outlined in part 2 of my series, ‘Who are the Christians?’:

1. Firstly, before he created the universe, God chose us—that is each and every person he would save—to be holy and blameless in Christ. Having determined absolutely from eternity who he would save,
2. He then predestined every one of us for adoption as his sons, through Christ Jesus, and purposed good works for us to perform. In order to effect this adoption and sanctification,
3. In due time, Christ died for our sins and was raised again. (This is not stated explicitly here, but is implied by verses 9 and 10, as well as step 4 below, and is clearly stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.) Having thus paid the penalty for our sins, making possible our redemption,
4. At the aforepurposed time, while we were still spiritually lifeless and completely unable to believe in him of our own accord, God himself gave us spiritual life by making known to us the mystery of his will: that is, the revelation of the gospel stated in steps 1 to 3. Having now received this faith, we are a “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17), and so,
5. We now perform good works as a result of our faith; works which God prepared for us to do beforehand, just as he prepared all things.

When we consider the atonement within the framework of redemption as a whole—from predestination to redemption to adoption to sanctification to final salvation—it becomes evident that a universal atonement simply does not fit into this structure. The sacrifice of Christ is the mechanism by which God adopts the people he chose from the foundation of the world, and achieves their final salvation. The whole process is completely centered around the elect, and excludes the reprobate sinners who are destined for hell. There is predestination at one end, and final salvation at the other. Christ’s death stands in the middle as the means from which to get from one to the other—so to suppose that his atonement was not particular to the elect, but was universal for all (at least potentially) is quite incongruent with the larger plan and process. Four-and-a-half point Calvinists, though genuinely wishing to properly understand the place of the atonement, and correctly exegete passages like John 3:16 and 2 Corinthians 5:18-20, unfortunately focus so closely on the atonement itself that they lose sight of the fact that TULIP is not simply a collection of unrelated doctrines thrown together into an acronym. Rather, it is an acrostic for the whole, integrated plan of redemption: the total sinfulness of man; which implies the unconditional particular election of God; which implies the atonement being limited to those elect; which implies the irresistible calling of grace; which implies the preservation in faith unto final salvation.

One last aspect of God’s redemptive plan which is valuable to the full explication of particular redemption is found in the doctrine of federal headship, summed up in Romans 5:18-19:

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

Now, we know that Adam’s transgression did indeed cause us all to be counted as sinners before God. That is, in Adam, every single person ever became a sinner. However, it is evident that Paul is using the parallelism of the word all for effect, rather than for a direct and literal comparison to those justified, because we know that every single person ever does not become justified in Christ. That is, the first all refers to all people without exception; the second all, though used for poetic effect, refers to all Christians without exception. This is made apparent by the continuation of the parallelism, wherein it is reversed: for Paul now refers to the many (a part of the all) who are sinners, and the many who are justified. In doing so, he shows us that, although he uses poetry for effect, his meaning is that the all are sinners in Adam, and the many are righteous in Christ.

In this, we can see that, though the first Adam represented all mankind, the second Adam represented only his elect people. For if all people without exception had been represented in Christ, then they all would be justified in him; just as, because all people without exception were represented in Adam, they all are made sinners in him. But since all people without exception are not justified—for justification is applied by faith and not all people have faith—so it follows that all people were not represented in Christ. And if all people were not represented in Christ, then his atonement was not for them. No, his atonement was made only for those he represented, and those he represented were only the elect.

For these reasons, among others, we must reject the doctrine of unlimited atonement, or hypothetical universalism, or four-and-a-half-point Calvinism, or whatever else it may be called. As Darryl correctly points out, the extent of the atonement it is not a merely theoretical or unimportant doctrine; a matter of splitting hairs. Rather, it is an integral part of redemption as a whole, and it directly influences the manner in which we present the gospel to sinners. We must not tell them that their sins are taken care of in Christ—rather, we must tell them to repent and believe for the forgiveness of their sins.

Whatever questions of assurance arise from the doctrine of particular redemption—questions like “was my sin really covered in Christ’s death?” “How do I know?” “If I believe, is that just me or is it because of His work?”—they are questions which apply to the whole of Calvinistic soteriology. They are certainly common, and certainly understandable—but they are not answered by supposing universal redemption instead. Since redemption is secured or applied through faith, it is really faith itself which is at the heart of the issue. After all, redemption—universal or not—does not apply without faith, and so the assurance of our salvation will always be of concern to us at various points in our lives. This is why an understanding not just of justification, but of sanctification also, is so important; and why Paul exhorts the Philippians to “work out” their salvation “with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12). But these questions must be answered by sound teaching on God’s redemptive plan; of predestination and election, of particular atonement, of justification by faith alone; and of walking by faith and not by sight, so as to run the race with endurance. They are not answered by unlimited atonement.

This post has been subject to correction in ‘Thinking more clearly about the atonement’ »